Not on 9/11, because I was not thinking coherently that day; I had just watched my husband die on television in a grand and showy bonfire of ash and humanity. But the day after, when I started to think about what had happened, I started toying idly with the idea that there might be a God.

It wasn't that I needed consolation, or that I wanted to find a greater purpose in so much senseless death. It was that I had trouble believing that simple, random fate could be so horribly cruel. It seemed like there should be an intelligence behind that magnitude of cruelty. I was and am a Taoist; somehow such an enormity did not seem to fit my sense of the world's balance. Do you know the Rolling Stones song? That day very nearly destroyed my notion of circular time.

In a sense, I was right; there was an intelligence behind the cruelty. But it was not divine intelligence. It was the ordinary and everyday notion of otherwise functionally rational humans that they knew what God wanted of them, and, further, an honest attempt to do this bidding.

This is why I have never been able to find it in myself to be angry at the terrorists. They were essentially non-sane. Whether their sanity had been truncated due to illness or trauma or whether they had been born with a deficiency is irrelevant; it makes as much sense to be angry at them for killing as it would to be angry at a legless man for using crutches. In a very fundamental way, it was impossible for them to do otherwise.

Two of my husband's three brothers are born-again Christians. After 9/11, I heard from their mother that the eldest was angry with God. To be perfectly honest, I understood this rather less than I understood the motivation for crashing a plane into a building. If you truly believe in God, how can you be angry with him? Any action He performs must be acceptable. This made me angry, though it's hard for me to explain why; I felt that if the brother simply had to believe as he did, that he should at least be consistent in his belief. I heard later that he had made his peace; he had realized that God, in his infinite love, can and indeed must be cruel.

I could have told him that.

You will probably have noticed that I don't post on this board. I have never thought it either necessary or productive to discuss or expound the reasons why I think a belief in God is irrational. But I wanted to tell this story today because, in a moment of the greatest stress, I understood and nearly fell myself into the irrationality. Perhaps not for the same reasons that others do; but it was the other side of the same cheaply alloyed coin.

I recovered myself; and this, too, was part of the grieving and healing process. I remain a Taoist, and the events of 9/11 fit into my philosophy because Man fits there. Man is both the best thing and the worst thing that can happen to himself, and having himself, he needs no god, either to praise or to blame. This knowledge has nothing to do with moral strength, or intellectual fortitude, or anything like that. It was simply a matter of remaining sane; just as we do not congratulate a healthy person on their continued good health, we cannot congratulate ourselves on our own sanity.

For those who live with a non-sane world picture, I have only sorrow and pity. They deserve it more than I do.

About this post: I have already mentioned that I am not a regular visitor to this board, and I apologize if this constitutes an interruption. Frankly, I didn't know where else to put it. It's part of my grieving process; for your indulgence, my thanks.

Man is both the best thing and the worst thing that can happen to himself, and having himself, he needs no god, either to praise or to blame. This knowledge has nothing to do with moral strength, or intellectual fortitude, or anything like that. It was simply a matter of remaining sane; just as we do not congratulate a healthy person on their continued good health, we cannot congratulate ourselves on our own sanity.

<>

About this post: I have already mentioned that I am not a regular visitor to this board, and I apologize if this constitutes an interruption. Frankly, I didn't know where else to put it. It's part of my grieving process; for your indulgence, my thanks.

as one of the board's semi-regular, semi-Taoists .... thanks.very interesting. stuff for thought.

& as a semi-human, Almost ANYthing that helps a human with the grieving is a good thing.

In a sense, I was right; there was an intelligence behind the cruelty. But it was not divine intelligence. It was the ordinary and everyday notion of otherwise functionally rational humans that they knew what God wanted of them, and, further, an honest attempt to do this bidding.

I guess. Don't see it as any more insane than "King and Country". Nothing really new.

Sailor man Bill Buckley isn't insane by the usual definitions, but he is just as dangerous, if far more entertaining. He did say that when he and Malcolm Muggeridge had a private audience with Pope John Paul II (sometime before the 1993 CSPAN interview), the Pope greeted Malcolm Muggeridge by saying, "You are radio?".

Buckley noted that no matter how many times you could rehearse an answer to that question, it's really hard to come up with a good response. :)

The great Kurt Vonnegut, who witnessed and documented some of the most recent insanity, was on Bill Maher's show this week. Vonnegut thought the earth was now trying to rid itself of the human virus. Kind of like a syphillis virus. Vonnegut seemed to be in favor of that happening. Transcript isn't up yet.

Perhaps just exasperation after another tough week. Maybe not. Hard to really tell whether things are getting better or worse. Probably better in most ways, if you carefully ignore what needs to be ignored. Probably better, although progress sure seems much less of a good bet than just a few years ago. The malaise, seen it before, hopefully will pass again before too long.

The great Kurt Vonnegut, who witnessed and documented some of the most recent insanity, was on Bill Maher's show this week. Vonnegut thought the earth was now trying to rid itself of the human virus. Kind of like a syphillis virus. Vonnegut seemed to be in favor of that happening. Transcript isn't up yet.

hmmmm....i've often thought that H.saps is rather like an ugly skin-disease ...

If you truly believe in God, how can you be angry with him? Any action He performs must be acceptable.

I don't see how that follows. Yes, I know, many Christians seem to believe that anything the god they believe in does is automatically good, but I don't see a contradiction in believing in a cruel god that doesn't care about the feelings of his worshippers.

About this post: I have already mentioned that I am not a regular visitor to this board, and I apologize if this constitutes an interruption. Frankly, I didn't know where else to put it. It's part of my grieving process; for your indulgence, my thanks.

I have watched your posts on other boards and have been impressed with the dignity you have displayed in spite of the horrific loss you suffered on 9/11. I can only admire it because I am sure I could not emulate it.

Frankly, if it were me, I probably would have boarded the first airplane for the Middle East and tried to figure out a way to get a case of dynamite shipped there.

How you have coped with your grief and let others in during the process is praiseworthy, although you have never solicited that. I hope you will, if the mood strikes, come back to this board from time to time; I'm sure you will be welcomed by all.

If you truly believe in God, how can you be angry with him? Any action He performs must be acceptable.........I don't see how that follows. Yes, I know, many Christians seem to believe that anything the god they believe in does is automatically good, but I don't see a contradiction in believing in a cruel god that doesn't care about the feelings of his worshippers.

yes, but that would be a different god.

you could maybe do a poll or something, but i think "all-good" god is a Key belief of Christians

-j.... ignoring for the moment, the ones that think their god punishes random peoplefor the sins of others ( Katrina because of all the 'lewd' women at Mardi Gras)

What was in the minds of the 9/11 terrorists, and how should we judge them?

From all the evidence we have, it seems the terrorists were dedicated to their version of God, and they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to do what they thought God wanted of them.

Should we be angry at them personally? They had a very different version of reality than what is commonly accepted in western civilization. We think they were stupid and ignorant for having this version of reality, but were they also evil? Were they personally responsible for being brainwashed by their religion? Or were they victims, just as much as the other 3000 people who died?

In some sense, blaming them is like blaming a cripple for being crippled, or a dog for being stupid.

Should the US then start a war to kill Muslims in revenge? This is not what the US is doing, officially, but somehow I think this judgement of Muslim guilt and a need for revenge underlies what the US has been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a stupid strategy, of course. It will not work any better than feeding Christians to the lions in ancient Rome stopped the spread of Christianity. This analogy is far from perfect, but I sense there is some truth in it: our war against Islam will only strengthen the dedication of those Muslims who see us as the enemies of God.

What's enraging is that it's pretty much willful stupidity -- on both sides.

"My God can beat up your God." "Your God wears army boots.""My God's real; yours isn't.""My Bible's literal truth; the Koran's a lie.""My God tells me to kill the infidel.""My God tells me to kill his enemies.""My God tells me women are inferior to men, and should obey them.""Wait! A point of agreement!!! So does mine!"

Should we be angry at them personally? They had a very different version of reality than what is commonly accepted in western civilization. We think they were stupid and ignorant for having this version of reality, but were they also evil? Were they personally responsible for being brainwashed by their religion?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Or were they victims, just as much as the other 3000 people who died?

No.

People have brains. If they choose not to use them, I am not sympathetic. That goes for Muslims as well as Christians. Also for racists and homophones, FWIW. If mankind never rose above basic prejudice, we would never have climbed out of the caves.

Yes, I blame stupid people for being stupid. No, I do not blame retarded people for being retarded. You see the difference?

Should the US then start a war to kill Muslims in revenge? This is not what the US is doing, officially, but somehow I think this judgement of Muslim guilt and a need for revenge underlies what the US has been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan I would disagree. We took on a regime which knowingly harbored terrorists, aided and abetted them with full foreknowledge that they would come here (and other western countries) to kill people. That makes them equally as guilty as the guy who sticks up a convenience store, but whose partner pulls the trigger that kills the owner.

Iraq, obviously, is an entirely different issue.

Are we guilty of stupidity, just like the Muslims of 9/11?

Yes, but ours is more nuanced. We are stupid, and exceptionally so for our naivete in thinking Iraq would be a cakewalk, that the people there would greet us as liberators, that we could forge a national identity among three disparate groups who hate each other, that we would not inflame the rest of the world, that we would not lose the support of the rest of the world, and a million other things, including that the war would pay for itself.

In Afghanistan we were not stupid. We warned them, we warned them, we warned them, and only then did we attack. Of course based on the Iraq example, we probably would have attacked them anyway, even if they had turned over Bin Laden and his lieutenants as we demanded.

In some sense, blaming them is like blaming a cripple for being crippled, or a dog for being stupid.

Honestly, I seriously have to disagree with this line of thought. This line of thought leads to the idea that we shouldn't punish them...that we should show compassion and understanding for this kind of person.

That is HOGWASH. This is the kind of person I DON'T WANT in my society. Being deluded that they have control of human life in whatever way they want...is not an excuse. It is a very harmful idea and does not belong in society.

Cancer is un-erring in it's ability to corrupt and kill...we can still hate it. We can still work to eradicate it. The same applies here. These people that flew those planes (and the ones that think like them) were a/are a cancer that needs to be removed. No absolution, no understanding, no trying to figure them out.

Just like with cancer...you get rid of it with everything you have...then you educate the populace on how to avoid cancer.

No-one should make apologies for these people. They were criminal and evil...regardless of where those ideas came from.

Buffy (who thinks compassion should be saved for people that contribute to society...)

In some sense, blaming them is like blaming a cripple for being crippled, or a dog for being stupid.

Honestly, I seriously have to disagree with this line of thought. This line of thought leads to the idea that we shouldn't punish them...that we should show compassion and understanding for this kind of person.

These are both valid points. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

Calling them "evil" is a philosophical cop-out. None of us should be so arrogant as to believe that had we been born and raised in certain circumstances we might believe just as strongly that America is an evil empire, Islam calls us to Jihad, and that suicide attacks are both warranted and rewarded in the afterlife. Had we been born and raised under the right circumtances we all would be capable of owning slaves, hating homosexuals, or martyring ourselves for Allah.

That said, none of these actions can be tolerated. We as a society draw the lines of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. As we grow more enlightened, those lines change, and they aren't always clear. Some, however, are so firmly drawn by the civilized world that crossing them must never be tolerated under any circumstances. Slavery and mass murder of innocent civilians would qualify. The message from society is pretty clear...cross these lines, and we will defend ourselves against you, ruthlessly killing you if necessary.

Cancer is un-erring in it's ability to corrupt and kill...we can still hate it. We can still work to eradicate it. The same applies here. These people that flew those planes (and the ones that think like them) were a/are a cancer that needs to be removed. No absolution, no understanding, no trying to figure them out.

Not that I agree with your cancer analogy, but just to make a point: Do you think we could fight cancer without trying to understand it? Or by pretending we already know everything about it, and who cares what the doctors say? That's the kind of emotional response that leads to, in the medical context, witch doctors. In sociological context it leads to similarly faith-based diagnoses and responses...like a "war on terror," the convenient categorization of some humas as non-human animals or monsters, and the invasion of Iraq. Trying to understand and figure out the phenomenon is the single most fundimental first step in handling the problem. Leave it out and you might as well be waving a chicken bone over a pot of boiling goat's blood.

None of us should be so arrogant as to believe that had we been born and raised in certain circumstances we might believe just as strongly that America is an evil empire, Islam calls us to Jihad, and that suicide attacks are both warranted and rewarded in the afterlife

That should've read: "None of us should be so arrogant as to not believe that had we been born and raised in certain circumstances..."

Not that I agree with your cancer analogy, but just to make a point: Do you think we could fight cancer without trying to understand it? Or by pretending we already know everything about it, and who cares what the doctors say?

Sorry...probably should have said something more like empathy instead of understanding.

We as a society draw the lines of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. As we grow more enlightened, those lines change, and they aren't always clear. Some, however, are so firmly drawn by the civilized world that crossing them must never be tolerated under any circumstances. Slavery and mass murder of innocent civilians would qualify. The message from society is pretty clear...cross these lines, and we will defend ourselves against you, ruthlessly killing you if necessary.

"Society" only seems to get incensed about such things when there's an actual impact on the lives of the members of "society." For example, we tolerate many incidences of mass murder or innocent civilians by dictators throughout the world because we see no profit in putting an end to it. Only when the mass murders in question impact our lives in a direct way do we react as though we really believed there is a real line between what is acceptable and what is not.

The "line" you describe is a defensive one, in the main -- not a moral one. And we draw that line in a very different place when we ourselves are the agents of mass murder -- as in our "Shock and Awe" campaign against Iraq -- when we describe the deaths of innocent civilians in a war of conquest as "collateral damage."

Most societies draw the line in a place most advantageous to them, irrespective of the impact on other societies, and have very little real regard for those on the "outside." We practice a form of situational ethics when we make the claim that we are entitled even to kill innocents in an effort to defend ourselves against the guilty. The reasoning behind such a claim requires a premise which values different innocent lives differently -- our own as sacrosanct and others as expendable in a defensive posture.

We are today -- and millions of people understand this perfectly well -- engaged in a war in which thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed, and our reasons for this war are, at bottom, economic. We wish, as a society, to insure that our energy sources are securely in our hands, regardless of the proper ownership of those sources or the numbers of people we have to kill in order to secure them. And if this reason were articulated honestly to the American people, with full disclosure of the consequences to our way of life of failure in this regard, I have no doubt that the majority of Americans would make the immoral choice to value their lifestyles over the lives of the people we must kill in order to protect those lifestyles.

People like to make the claim that they draw "moral" lines around certain forms of behaior, but in most cases (sadly), those lines become blurry when one's own self-interest is at stake. We found many reasons to justify the bombing of Dresden and the horrors of Nagasaki (clearly an unncessary "over-kill" even granting the argument that Hiroshima was necessary to reveal the extent of our power and prevent the continuation of the war). We would, no doubt, however, heartily condemn such actions against us -- or against our "allies," -- even such "allies" as those who boil their dissidents alive in order to maintain their own power.

We easily condemn the taking of innocent life when done by those whose values we don't share and justify it when done by those who are "like us." All societies do this, and this fact refutes entirely the claims made by those who would assert an "objective morality" applicable to all, in all circumstances. "Thou shalt not murder," (granting "murder" rather than "kill" as the standard we are told is absolute), yet all that needs to be accomplished in order to cheerily break this "absolute moral rule" is to re-define "murder" to meet our needs.

The guys who flew planes into the WTC were engaging in the same form of self-delusional justification of the killing of innocents in which we engaged in Vietnam, Dresden, Nagasaki, and in the slaughter of Native Americans in the very building of this society.

All societies adopt a relativistic ethic, and will continue to do so as long as human beings regard survival and self-interest as dictated by competition rather than cooperation. It's the inevitable consequence of a world factionalized and competing for resources and power.

What was in the minds of the 9/11 terrorists, and how should we judge them?

From all the evidence we have, it seems the terrorists were dedicated to their version of God, and they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to do what they thought God wanted of them.

This is because they are idiots.

Should we be angry at them personally?

Yes, because we should never suffer idiots gladly.

They had a very different version of reality than what is commonly accepted in western civilization. We think they were stupid and ignorant for having this version of reality, but were they also evil? Were they personally responsible for being brainwashed by their religion? Or were they victims, just as much as the other 3000 people who died?

In some sense, blaming them is like blaming a cripple for being crippled, or a dog for being stupid.

No. It's different. A dog is a dog and has no choice. Neither does a cripple. But the religious are WILLFULLY stupid and cause much harm in this world. By choice.

Are we guilty of stupidity, just like the Muslims of 9/11?

Did we attack Iraq?Have you noticed who is President?And you have to ask this question?

The guys who flew planes into the WTC were engaging in the same form of self-delusional justification of the killing of innocents in which we engaged in Vietnam, Dresden, Nagasaki, and in the slaughter of Native Americans in the very building of this society.

All societies adopt a relativistic ethic, and will continue to do so as long as human beings regard survival and self-interest as dictated by competition rather than cooperation. It's the inevitable consequence of a world factionalized and competing for resources and power.

That's all true, of course. I didn't mean to imply that I believe in moral absolutes. I was referring more to what society should and must do, rather than what people often end up doing.

This weekend I read a good article in The Economist that points to what you are saying. Namely, how the civilized world selectively chooses when moral duty applies. It was about Uzbekistan, and how none of us seem to really care much about curbing the violent abuses of its government. I don't have the issue on me, but there was a great quote that I'll post later when I get home.

That's all true, of course. I didn't mean to imply that I believe in moral absolutes.

No, Zeige, I understood that.

I do, however, believe in certain moral absolutes. I merely recognize that most of the world doesn't, despite claiming to.

"Thou shalt not murder" is purportedly a moral absolute for Christians, yet they can swiftly and dextrously re-define "murder" to include the premeditated killing of innocents when they perceive it to be in their own self-interest.

I believe that there are truly some moral absolutes, but fully acknowledge how easy it is to define one's terms such that one can believe such a thing and yet never be "guilty" of breaking an "absolute" moral rule. And how easy it is, moreover, to coast through life without asking oneself the hard questions involving definitions that determine what we believe about moral issues.

Most people, I think, are in self-denial about their own moral principles, because, I think, most people don't spend much time examining what they really believe, whether or not what they believe is consistent, or whether what they believe is truly moral.

If you find that Economist article, let me know. It sounds interesting. I think our American disinterest in the suffering of peoples of other nations and cultures is, in part, a function of our miserable mass media which provides neither the context nor the depth of information necessary to capture the moral attention of American people. But I think, as well, that it's also a function of the application of "pragmatic" ethics over "absolute morality," and that deniability about this truth is maintained only by the aversion of the eyes and mind.

Mikecorn: In some sense, blaming them is like blaming a cripple for being crippled, or a dog for being stupid.

dlbuffy: Honestly, I seriously have to disagree with this line of thought. This line of thought leads to the idea that we shouldn't punish them...that we should show compassion and understanding for this kind of person.

That is HOGWASH. This is the kind of person I DON'T WANT in my society. Being deluded that they have control of human life in whatever way they want...is not an excuse. It is a very harmful idea and does not belong in society.

I'm going to kind agree with Mike and kind of agree with you at the same time.

Stupid people are stupid, and in some cases they are a danger to the rest of us. When they become a danger, they should be removed.

On the other hand, we're all a little stupid sometimes, and sometimes the only reason we haven't killed ourselves or anyone else is partly a matter of luck. When I was a teenager, I drove out of a parking lot in the middle of the night and some jerk didn't slow down for me. He nearly hit me, but he honked and slammed on the brakes. "What a schmuck," I thought, as I drove away, "I came out way ahead of him and he had plenty of time to slow down.

Two minutes later I realized I hadn't turned my headlights on.

If I had killed the other driver in that fashion, my life would have turned out very differently even if I survived. As it was, I didn't tell anyone (until now) and I got to keep using my driver's license. Didn't even get a blemish on my record. Of course even if one of us had died, it would be a lot different from a moral perspective than if I had deliberately gone and killed somebody because I disagreed with their religion.

But in some way, where we are in life is also largely a matter of dumb luck. I was born into a family of atheists. Would I still be an atheist if I'd been switched at birth and raised by a couple of Alabama rednecks? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I would have struggled with it a lot but ultimately stayed true to my "parents" and their religion. But the fact is, statistically, most people stick with the religion they were raised in. I really doubt that all of that is due to the presence or absence of personal fortitude or strength of character.

If I had been raised by parents born in Afghanistan, would I now be a wild-eyed (but unusually white) Muslim who thinks it's good to blow up Americans? Obviously I hope not, but I really don't know. I am who I am because of my choices, yes, but also because of my environment. I had comfortably middle class parents who could afford to send me to college; lots of people aren't that lucky. I was never in a concentration camp or even the army. Lots of people have no other choice. I'm probably wimpier than they are.

See, it's only PARTLY an individual's fault if they are a religious whackjob. Part of it is that that's what was expected of them when they were kids, and that's what they turned into.

Does this mean we can't punish people and remove them from society when they present a danger to everyone else? Of course not. It's just that "Understanding people" and "showing compassion" and maybe even "educating them" should be the FIRST line of defense against that kind of behavior, and "locking them up" or "killing them back" is the LAST. In a sense, when you resort to those responses, it means that you've really blown it with all the other methods.

If somebody is trying to kill you RIGHT NOW, sure, kill them back. I don't love my neighbor as much as I love myself. My life comes first. I believe in self defense. I even think that if it's clear enough that somebody is plotting to kill me next month, and there's no other way to stop them now, I'd rather kill them first. See? I'm a limp-wristed liberal, but not that limp.

But if killing the maniacs is all we can think to do when we think of keeping the peace, then we aren't solving the basic issues that turned them into maniacs in the first place. You'll never eliminate all the maniacs, some people are just screwed up. But I happen to think that you're better off throwing a lot more resources at prevention than cure.

But if killing the maniacs is all we can think to do when we think of keeping the peace, then we aren't solving the basic issues that turned them into maniacs in the first place. You'll never eliminate all the maniacs, some people are just screwed up. But I happen to think that you're better off throwing a lot more resources at prevention than cure.

It's funny how the old puzzle "If you could go back in time and meet Hitler as a young man, would you kill him?" never includes the option to make friends with him and tell him a few things that might alter his perception of the world.

"Society" only seems to get incensed about such things when there's an actual impact on the lives of the members of "society." For example, we tolerate many incidences of mass murder or innocent civilians by dictators throughout the world because we see no profit in putting an end to it. Only when the mass murders in question impact our lives in a direct way do we react as though we really believed there is a real line between what is acceptable and what is not.

I think "profit" is the wrong word to use in this case. In spite of the rhetoric you hear from the followers of Marx, war is never "profitable". War causes disruptions in trade and increases the cost of vital resources. At best, manufacturers of arms and other military supplies may see increased revenues during wartime, but even they will not be profitable if the cost of producing those supplies is greater than the revenues they generate.

As for the other part of this statement, yes, nations do tend to act only when they are directly threatened by a regime. That's the way a nation SHOULD conduct its foreign policy. A government has a moral obligation to protect the lives of its citizens. An evil regime could potentially be a threat to the United States. However, even a nation as rich as the United States does not have the resources to fight every dictator on the face of the earth. We have to set priorities and pick our battles, based on the degree to which a given situation is a threat to us.

For example, the governments involved in the atrocities in Rwanda would certainly be considered evil, but they were not an imminent threat to the United States. They were not allowing terrorists to train for attacks on the United States, nor were they attempting to build weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. Therefore, there was no moral (or Constitutional) basis for US intervention. Of course, individual citizens of the United States could always decide to offer assistance to the victims of the atrocities if so motivated.

We are today -- and millions of people understand this perfectly well -- engaged in a war in which thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed, and our reasons for this war are, at bottom, economic.

First of all, it's not about economics. It's about preventing the spread of irrational, dangerous ideas in a volatile region. It's one thing if the citizens of a particular nation don't like us. I can live with that. It's a different story when those citizens and their governments are actively plotting the destruction or subjugation of our civilization or assisting other people with their attempts to destroy us.

I once thought that we should just stay out of the affairs of other nations and only defend ourselves if we were directly attacked. After watching the towers come down, I realized that we can't afford to wait that long. A few well-placed WMDs would be all it would take to cripple our nation. If we discover a plot to use such weapons against us, then we have to act on that information. (For the record, I am still not convinced that Iraq was not developing such weapons. The long delay forced on us by the French gave Saddam plenty of time to hide the evidence.)

History shows that many destructive conflicts could have been avoided if other nations had intervened earlier. France, for example, could have easily stopped the rise of Hitler by intervening when Germany occupied the Rhineland in 1936. They did nothing, and that proved to Hitler that the West was afraid to oppose him. Millions of people died as a result of this French reluctance to fight.

"But, it will be objected, is it not more monstrous to kill all those innocent civilians?"

"No. The moral principle is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves. (Similarly, if in self-defense you shoot a hit man about to kill you, and also strike the innocent bystander the hit man was deliberately using as a shield, moral responsibility for the bystander's death lies with the hit man not you.)"

"Moreover, the objection contains a mistaken assumption: it is false that every civilian in enemy territory--whether we are speaking of Hitler's Germany or Hirohito's Japan or the Taliban's Afghanistan or Hussein's Iraq--is innocent."

"Many civilians in the Mid-East, for example, hate us and actively support, materially and/or spiritually, those plotting our deaths. Can one seriously maintain, for instance, that the individuals in the Mid-East who celebrated by dancing in the streets on September 11 are innocent?"

"But what of those who truly are innocent?"

"The civilians in enemy territory who actually oppose their dictatorial, terrorist governments are usually their governments' first innocent victims. All such individuals who remain alive and outside of prison camps should try to flee their country or fight with us (as some did in Afghanistan)."

"And the truly innocent who live in countries that initiate force against other nations will acknowledge the moral right of a free nation to bomb their countries and destroy their governments--even if this jeopardizes their own lives. No truly innocent civilian in Nazi Germany, for example, would have questioned the morality of the Allies razing Germany, even if he knew he may die in the attacks. No truly innocent individual wishes to become a tool of or a shield for his murderous government; he wishes to see his government toppled."

In addition, I challenge the notion that your statement "refutes ... those who would assert an 'objective morality'". You don't have to be religious to observe that certain ideas have yielded better results than other ideas. Nations with free markets tend to be more prosperous than nations with command economies. Free societies tend to be more peaceful than controlled societies. Those are both examples of "objective morality".

All societies adopt a relativistic ethic, and will continue to do so as long as human beings regard survival and self-interest as dictated by competition rather than cooperation. It's the inevitable consequence of a world factionalized and competing for resources and power

You may be a moral relativist, but I am not and neither are many other people in the United States and in the rest of the world. Nor is it "inevitable" that a world composed of separate nations will collapse into war. Nations can compete for resources without destroying each other. That's the purpose of trade and commerce. Violence usually occurs because irrational beliefs take hold in a society and no one challenges those ideas until it's too late. That's exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, for example. Moral relativism actually makes violence more probable, since it disables people from distinguishing between good and evil.

I may be an athiest, but I can still tell the difference between good and evil because of the "objective morality" that guides my beliefs.

We are today -- and millions of people understand this perfectly well -- engaged in a war in which thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed, and our reasons for this war are, at bottom, economic.>>>>>>First of all, it's not about economics. It's about preventing the spread of irrational, dangerous ideas in a volatile region

a question i've often asked...

is it (the war) ABOUT what the President says it is?or what he actually believes?

I am who I am because of my choices, yes, but also because of my environment.

Kazim,

I might be tempted to go so far as to say that our available options are limited, to a very real extent and in very real ways by our environment -- by the culture in which we were raised, the people with whom we associate (whether by "choice" or geographical fiat), and our native ability to reason beyond the principles we grew up with.

People like to place blame on the basis of choices made by individuals, but, in many cases, the range of options from which certain individuals are "free" to choose is extremely limited -- whether by intellect or psychological issues.

It would be nice if the world could agree on definitions of "good" and "bad" which aren't tainted by such issues as the superstitions pervasive within different cultures. It would make our range of options far more "overlapping" and comprehensible.

SLL,Your post is so full of wisdom as you state the obvious and reality, seeing through all of the fluff and hype. It follows a thought that, sadly, bears in my mind.

It is as if our government and society are trying to come full circle. I recall my history lessons in days of yore and hear those same words coming from the mouths of our leaders of today:

Hear ye, hear ye! I am king of my kingdom and I want your kingdom. I will pillage your villages and kill your people and take what I want - all in the name of my God. The powerful and wealthy will rule forever and ever and the lowly peasants will be at my mercy - all in the name of my God.

I got lots of dissenting replies, to the effect that the 9/11 terrorists were stupid, were themselves responsible for their stupid world view, and the USA is justified to exterminate them and their types wherever they are.

They were not stupid. Most were college grads, some with engineering degrees. Crazy, yes, but not stupid.

I think you are oversimplifying and missing something basic. The poisonous world view of Islam (esp. the Saudi variety) is the real enemy. Instead of making martyrs out of some terrorists and inspiring a million others in the process, we should focus on how to undermine the source of the cancer, or keep it bottled up where it is.

People driven by religion are not as free and responsible for their actions as we Americans would like to believe. We would rather exterminate the evil persons (along with 10X as many innocent bystanders) than face a much more complex problem with no easy answers. And political leaders can be seen as taking bold action to solve the problem, even when it is really counterproductive.

They were not stupid. Most were college grads, some with engineering degrees. Crazy, yes, but not stupid.

I think you are oversimplifying and missing something basic. The poisonous world view of Islam (esp. the Saudi variety) is the real enemy.

i think it's more complicated than just "Islam" or even "Wahabism" .... there's history and culture and repression and poverty ..that are redirected by leaders who'rethe actual cause against US .

...other than that --

Instead of making martyrs out of some terrorists and inspiring a million others in the process, we should focus on how to undermine the source of the cancer, or keep it bottled up where it is.

People driven by religion are not as free and responsible for their actions as we Americans would like to believe. We would rather exterminate the evil persons (along with 10X as many innocent bystanders) than face a much more complex problem with no easy answers. And political leaders can be seen as taking bold action to solve the problem, even when it is really counterproductive.

Should the US then start a war to kill Muslims in revenge? This is not what the US is doing, officially, but somehow I think this judgement of Muslim guilt and a need for revenge underlies what the US has been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. .........In Afghanistan I would disagree. We took on a regime which knowingly harbored terrorists, aided and abetted them with full foreknowledge that they would come here (and other western countries) to kill people. That makes them equally as guilty as the guy who sticks up a convenience store, but whose partner pulls the trigger that kills the owner.

that may make the 'regime' guilty ...does it make the Collateral Damage guilty?

i was about the only one i noticed who was 'against' Afghanistan because it smelledlike Revenge & i didn't really trust the Administration.

smelled like --a bunch of Muslims killed Americans so let's us go kill a bigger bunch ofMuslims. (my same old Question -- what's the .real. reason? Does it matter? )

-j..... recall reading somewhere recently (don't recall how reliable) that Taliban didoffer to turn over OBL ... but the Admin ignored them..... if true, then ??

"...it makes as much sense to be angry at them for killing as it would to be angry at a legless man for using crutches. In a very fundamental way, it was impossible for them to do otherwise."

"Man is both the best thing and the worst thing that can happen to himself, and having himself, he needs no god, either to praise or to blame. This knowledge has nothing to do with moral strength, or intellectual fortitude, or anything like that. It was simply a matter of remaining sane; just as we do not congratulate a healthy person on their continued good health, we cannot congratulate ourselves on our own sanity."

It doesn't sound like you have a belief in any sort of absolute right or wrong. It sounds like you are not capable of righteous indignation. The terrorists did what they did because they couldn't help themselves. Man is the measure of all things, so there's no absolute right or wrong. Your philosophy appears essentially new age, where humanity is god.

Am I right? I read through your post rather quickly, so I may have missed a point or two.

People driven by religion are not as free and responsible for their actions as we Americans would like to believe.

Bull pookey.Every single human being with enough reasoning capacity to decide whether to put on his left sock first or his right also has the ability to decide whether or not he will take the life of another human being.

People can only hide behind religion for so long -- ultimately the responsibility lies at their own socked or UNsocked feet. They ARE responsible. To say otherwise makes them less than most animals. Even my cat knows when she has done something wrong.

..... recall reading somewhere recently (don't recall how reliable) that Taliban didoffer to turn over OBL ... but the Admin ignored them..... if true, then ??

I believe that is true.Several instances of the "bad guys" being willing to capitulate and do what we want have occurred and in each instance this administration has ignored the offers, called them lies, and then proceeded on with the pre-set plan of death and destruction (all in the name of Mom, Apple Pie, and Freedom).

I would suspect that at this point most intelligent foreign governments have concluded that no matter how much they give in, give up, or are willing to toe the line this U.S. administration will not listen and will launch the attack just because we want to and can.

Thus most governments seem to be gradually just more and more ignoring the U.S. in various ways, saying the feel good words and stalling as long as possible, and working very quickly to obtain WMD so that the U.S. will not attack.

I suspect most of the U.N. now view us as a pack of untrustworthy meglomaniacs who need to be carefully ego stroked while not allowing the idiot child to get its way.

..... recall reading somewhere recently (don't recall how reliable) that Taliban didoffer to turn over OBL ... but the Admin ignored them..... if true, then ??

This is all I could find- The offer was made prior to 9/11 attacks BUT let's remember that Clinton had tried to kill Ossama many times and that the new Bush administration was told that Ossama would be their highest security threat...

The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to the September 11 attacks. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's South Asian Division maintained constant satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul. Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. In the meantime, the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan. The visits of Islamist radicals did not end with the Taliban. In July 2001, the head of Pakistan's pro-bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, also reportedly was received at the George Bush Center for Intelligence (aka, CIA headquarters) in Langley, Virginia.

According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. Meanwhile, Spozhmai Maiwandi, the director of the Voice of America's Pashtun service, jokingly nicknamed "Kandahar Rose" by her colleagues, aired favorable reports on the Taliban, including a controversial interview with Mullah Omar.

..... recall reading somewhere recently (don't recall how reliable) that Taliban didoffer to turn over OBL ... but the Admin ignored them..... if true, then ??

I believe that is true.Several instances of the "bad guys" being willing to capitulate and do what we want have occurred and in each instance this administration has ignored the offers, called them lies, and then proceeded on with the pre-set plan of death and destruction (all in the name of Mom, Apple Pie, and Freedom).

and in some cases --may have been lies; may have been stall tactics --but MToWH™seem hell-bent on their wars.

also, in the Taliban case, they might not have been able to capture OBL (after all, the greatest Army in the History of the Galaxy has failed)

-j/....... plus, we used to have a theory that they don't want OBL captured or killed....

It doesn't sound like you have a belief in any sort of absolute right or wrong. It sounds like you are not capable of righteous indignation. The terrorists did what they did because they couldn't help themselves. Man is the measure of all things, so there's no absolute right or wrong. Your philosophy appears essentially new age, where humanity is god.

Does it sound that way? Simply because I cannot find it in myself to be angry at people I regard as mentally ill?

Murder is a crime, and I am perfectly capable of righteous indignation against those people who would justify that crime in terms of sociology and economics.

Religion is a madness, an illness which can cause otherwise intelligent and functional people to behave in a criminal fashion. I've seen posts in this thread which liken it to a cancer, and that's not too far afield. To hate a cancer is to ascribe to it a purpose it does not possess. To hate madness is similar. We have every right to attempt to root it out of the body politic, but it is pointless to be angry with it, and such anger fosters sickness in ourselves.

It doesn't sound like you have a belief in any sort of absolute right or wrong. It sounds like you are not capable of righteous indignation. The terrorists did what they did because they couldn't help themselves. Man is the measure of all things, so there's no absolute right or wrong. Your philosophy appears essentially new age, where humanity is god.

You have no reason to expect respect for your version of morality. Your version has already been found severely lacking.

We will never find the truth about morality as long as people like you are in numbers claiming some infinitesimal version and getting attention.

There doesn't seem to be a moral directive for what incredible things people do for their faith. As long as you support faith as truth, you will reap what you sow.

Only when truth is put foreward as truth, as was done in the OP, only then will there be a foundation for true morality.

According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. Meanwhile, Spozhmai Maiwandi, the director of the Voice of America's Pashtun service, jokingly nicknamed "Kandahar Rose" by her colleagues, aired favorable reports on the Taliban, including a controversial interview with Mullah Omar.

significantly different from what i recall (both could be true) ....

story i heard was definitely about after 9/11 and Taliban was willing to give OBL toWorld Court, not US

Sounds incredible though. No disrespect intended, but it seems to me that such an offer would have been the front page news in every country but this one. There were plenty that would have just loved to plaster this all over the world.

Sounds incredible though. No disrespect intended, but it seems to me that such an offer would have been the front page news in every country but this one. There were plenty that would have just loved to plaster this all over the world.

I do recall it; everything has gone into the memory hole.

When you see crap; copy it to your hard drive; then wait for the thought crimes folks.

Sounds incredible though. No disrespect intended, but it seems to me that such an offer would have been the front page news in every country but this one. There were plenty that would have just loved to plaster this all over the world.

When threatened with retributive attack by the US for harboring Al Qaeda, the Taliban government offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country for war crimes trial, but was ignored by the United States. It offered again two weeks later, getting increasing coverage in the International media.24 hours later the U.S., aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, initiated military action against the Taliban, in October 2001.

"We have every right to attempt to root it out of the body politic, but it is pointless to be angry with it, and such anger fosters sickness in ourselves."

I think that's right.

I think I have allowed myself to become angry when I should have been more focused on understanding the illness and searching for a cure.

To some extent, Bush and his followers are so much like bin laden and his followers that it does make me angry and afraid. But neither anger nor fear will help me fight these battles - whether they be against cancer or the mental illness of self righteous fundamentalism that seems to me to infect large numbers of Moslems and Christians.

<<People can only hide behind religion for so long -- ultimately the responsibility lies at their own socked or UNsocked feet. They ARE responsible. To say otherwise makes them less than most animals. Even my cat knows when she has done something wrong.>>

Your cat is not brainwashed by religion. This is a force that takes otherwise intelligent people and makes them into dangerous fools. I have seen it in action often enough to have a firm opinion.

high-IQ person + religion = dangerous fool

The dangerous fools may be responsible for their actions and guilty as hell, but believing this does nothing to contain the problem: religion is doing a nasty transformation on billions of people.

So what do we do about this? Do we continue slaughtering each-other until the last person alive is declared the winner? Or do we try harder to communicate with means other than guns and bombs?